Skip to: Navigation | Content | Footer

IPSO upholds Prince Harry complaint against Mail Online

The complaint followed an article published on Mail Online on 4 March 2017, headlined “Time to cool off! Happy (and hunky) Prince Harry enjoys a dip in the ocean as he and Meghan relax on the beach in Jamaica after his ‘wingman’s’ sun-drenched wedding.”

Author: News Desk

Posted on: 17 July 2017 08:25

IPSO upholds Prince Harry complaint against Mail Online

"The complainant had been photographed in circumstances in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy."

Prince Harry complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. IPSO upheld the complaint and has required Mail Online to publish this decision as a remedy to the breach.

The article reported that the complainant had recently attended a friend’s wedding in Jamaica. It was accompanied by photographs of the complainant wearing swimming shorts on a beach, at a beachside bar and in the sea.

The complainant said that these images had been taken in circumstances in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and while he was engaged in private activities unconnected to his public role. The photographs showed him wearing swimwear on a private beach; he had been unaware that he was being photographed; and he had not consented to the images’ publication. The complainant considered that no public interest was served by the article.

Mail Online said that it had been provided with credible information that the complainant had been on a public beach at the time the photographs were taken, and it had published them in good faith. While it regretted that it had been misinformed, it did not consider that the photographs had revealed intrinsically private information. It also noted that they had been published widely in the US and in one UK magazine.

The Committee found that the complainant had been photographed in circumstances in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. He had not consented to the images’ publication, and Mail Online had not sought to justify their publication in the public interest. Publishing photographs of the complainant engaged in private activities, without his knowledge and consent, represented a significant and unjustified intrusion in breach of Clause 2. The Committee upheld the complaint.

The complainant also raised concerns under Clause 1 (Accuracy) but this was not upheld.

comments powered by Disqus

Most read on InPublishing

These are the most read stories on the InPublishing website over the last 14 days, in order from the top.

Articles

Native – it’s all about Trust

James Evelegh
Posted on: 30 November 2017

Off The Page

David Hepworth
Posted on: 30 November 2017

The reader must pay!

James Evelegh
Posted on: 30 November 2017

My predictions for 2018

Jim Foster
Posted on: 30 November 2017

A balancing act

Ray Snoddy
Posted on: 30 November 2017

Hello! – Friend to the Stars

Ciar Byrne
Posted on: 30 November 2017

Media Quotes of the Year

Jon Slattery
Posted on: 30 November 2017

Less is more

Meg Carter
Posted on: 30 November 2017

Rise of agenda-driven journalism

Liz Gerard
Posted on: 30 November 2017

Peter Preston

James Evelegh
Posted on: 10 January 2018

This list is based on data from Google Analytics, and is refreshed every 24 hours. (Last updated: 21/01/2018 07:50)

Editor's Pick of Recent News Stories

Posted on: 19 January 2018
Posted on: 18 January 2018
Posted on: 18 January 2018
Posted on: 15 January 2018
Posted on: 15 January 2018

Find out more about

Featured job

Publisher Account Manager
Salary: Competitive
Gold Key Media
Soho, London

Featured in InPublishing Jobs

InPub Weekly: Sign-up

Click here to sign up for our free weekly email newsletter:

Sign up now!

Magazine registration

Next Top Tips Webinar

Navigating the Future of B2B Media: 10 practical strategies

2.30-3pm (GMT), Tuesday 30 January 2018

Carolyn Morgan

FREE-TO-ATTEND

Webinar sponsored by

Publishing Partners Guide